S.C. embraces Cuban style elections, strikes down Texas lawsuit and ignores rule of law!

[Synthaholic]

If you are a Trump democrat...switch parties to the GOP or independant...do not be a part of a party that is willing to steal an election....

Yea, the alternative is to join a lying pos party like yours that can't provide evidence. They are small and weak people.

Your party is dying a slow death...and stealing the election just pushed the gas peddle to the floor....

There you go again. All lies. You are weak and small. Show us the evidence loser.

I put Rambunctious on my Ignore List a long time ago. He's a troll. Do the same. You won't miss him.

 

[Rambunctious]

If you are a Trump democrat...switch parties to the GOP or independant...do not be a part of a party that is willing to steal an election....

Yea, the alternative is to join a lying pos party like yours that can't provide evidence. They are small and weak people.

Your party is dying a slow death...and stealing the election just pushed the gas peddle to the floor....

There you go again. All lies. You are weak and small. Show us the evidence loser.

I put Rambunctious on my Ignore List a long time ago. He's a troll. Do the same. You won't miss him.

Yeah sure ya did...I would have been notified...liar....see libs lie...and steal...and cheat....

 

[Synthaholic]

None of these so-called "conservatives" can explain how this isn't a States Rights issue.

 

[ReinyDays]

Legal standing can be more easily explained: You can't sue the electric company for overcharging your neighbor ... only he can ... you've not been harmed ...

That's the sense used by SCOTUS ... there's nothing about the PA election that changes TX's EV slate they sent to the EC ... and there's nothing in the laws of PA's election system that effect how TX runs their elections ... there's nothing in the Constitution that allows TX to impose election laws on PA ... thus the lack of Article III relief in the matter as filed ... TX can re-file the complaint and this time include relief requests that the court can grant ... and the complaint will be docketed in the order it was received ...

Article II, Section 1, Clause 2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct

TX has no say in how the PA legislature directs their elections ... any complaint that laws were broken must be filed in PA court, and these have all been dismissed ... part of the Texas complaint was that PA hasn't implemented enough safeguards against fraud, not that fraud actually occurred ... and no credible legal evidence of fraud has emerged ...

It's imperative to remember that this ruling only effects immediate relief ... TX will have her day in court ... if she can make her case that all election law in the nation must follow TX law in order to comply with the 14th Amendment, then we'll all have to follow TX law ... and then CA will have a pathway to enforce their environmental laws on all of us ... AL can enforce Jim Crow laws on the nation ... OR can enforce 12-year-old age-of-consent laws throughout ...

Bigger government is always better ...

 

[Gdjjr]

It's pretty obvious, the defenders of the corruption and voting shenanigans ain't very intelligent- the OP expressed the what's needed to know about the fools in black dresses, all over the country- and he cited where his findings come from-

Here's an opinion I'm sure won't be read by those who choose to remain ignorant- note what I made bold below- educated beyond their intellect- sadly, education is merely a passing on of knowledge- but, when an authority figure acts the fool- then you have to surmise, the education he/she acquired, by whatever meansm is, at best- suspect.


The Court’s “reasoning” disgusts Mike, who writes:

This is as if I walked into an astronomy classroom prepared to argue that the removal of the sun from its position in space and being placed one light year farther away from earth would significantly and negatively impact human survival and the SCIENCE COURT told me that I would not be allowed to make that argument because I didn’t first demonstrate that the current location of the sun relative to the earth was a significant and positive factor in the survival of the human race.

AHEM.

There is no need to demonstrate, first, to a human with a working brain and at least marginal understanding of the extant universe, that the current location of the sun is a significant and positive factor in the survival of the human race.
Neither did I demonstrate that the sun goes around the earth and appears to “rise” in the east and “set” in the west. Some things just are. … You know, like we all know what UP is and can reasonably explain it to a thinking person. Yes, it’s more complex than this, but, as far as working knowledge goes, well, some of us are just educated beyond our capacity to understand and explain, such as to the extent that most of us are not as stupid as an apparent silent majority of the U.S. SUPREME COURT.
STUPID IS AS STUPID RULES.
I know not what course others may choose, or be forced to endure, but the courts seem no longer an option.

Ah, but were they ever? American courts, from the lowliest traffic one to the Supremes, have been utterly corrupt for decades if not centuries.

The Sun Over Texas

 

[Gdjjr]

None of these so-called "conservatives" can explain how this isn't a States Rights issue.

Read the OP you nit wit- he DID explain it, stupid.

 

[johnwk]

Well the swamp won by cheating and bastardizing our election system to such an extent that no one will ever trust it or the SCOTUS or any court or blue city vote counts ever again....and the media has lost all credibility...turn off cable news and break their backs once and for all....

If this election fraud is not addressed, and our Constitution followed, here is a peek into America's future:



.
JWK

We need to start call these scoundrels what they really are! They are not “Democrats”, “Republicans”, “progressives”, or “liberal leaders”. They are radical, Cuban style, socialist revolutionaries, supported and defended by a Fifth Column Media and Yellow Journalists.

 

[Rambunctious]

If you are a Trump democrat...switch parties to the GOP or independant...do not be a part of a party that is willing to steal an election....

Yea, the alternative is to join a lying pos party like yours that can't provide evidence. They are small and weak people.

Your party is dying a slow death...and stealing the election just pushed the gas peddle to the floor....

Your own supreme court told you to fuck off.

You are a stupid stupid person...election fraud affects us all...don't you remember watching as Bernie was pushed out for the chosen one Hillary?....what makes you think that you will ever get a fair democrat primary ever again by allowing this ease of election fraud...whether its by ballot stuffing or hackable machines or last min rule changes...wake up dummy....

 

[konradv]

If this election fraud is not addressed, and our Constitution followed, here is a peek into America's future:

You and those that think like you are the ones undermining the Constitution. The SC is the body that decides what's Constitutional, not some talking heads or Trump's lawyers. In 2000, the SC ruled and Gore conceded. That's what someone with class who believes in the country and the rule of law does. Trump isn't one of those people and those who still support him need to do some soul searching about whether they really understand America and the Constitution at all.

 

[Gdjjr]

The SC is the body that decides what's Constitutional,

Not really- the constitution makes that decision- read the OP, idiot.

 

[Pogo]

.



According to countless media reports a majority on our Supreme Court has RULED that Texas lacked standing under Article III of the Constitution and that Texas did not provide a “judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.”

So, what is meant by “standing”?

When the Supreme Court considers to hear a case, the first question is, does the Plaintiff have a right to sue in the Supreme Court? This is what “standing” is about. It is not about the issue(s) in contention, but rather, is the Plaintiff entitled to be heard in the Supreme Court and have a resolution handed down by the Justices of the Supreme Court?

To establish standing in the United States Supreme Court certain requirements must be meet, e.g., does the S.C. have jurisdiction over the subject matter? In the instant case, and under Article III of the Constitution, our Supreme Court does in fact have “original jurisdiction” over “Controversies between two or more States”.


Standing also requires that the plaintiff(s) has suffered an actual injury; the injury is the result of the actions of the defendant; and the asserted injury can be resolved by court action.

In the immediate case the State of Texas alleges in its BILL OF COMPLAINT that the Defendant States have violated Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, of the United States Constitution, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

If the allegations are true as stated in the Complaint, Defendant States have allowed an overwhelming number of ineligible votes to be cast which canceled out the votes of lawful votes cast by the good people in the Plaintiff States, and in so doing, have disenfranchised their vote and engaged in a “depravation of rights under color of law” which is an actionable offense and injury.

Those States which have followed the Constitution in the appointment of presidential electors ought not to suffer from alleged unlawful conduct of States which may have violated the federal Constitution in their appointment of presidential electors.

In fact, the people of the Defendant States must be held accountable for the actions of those they have willingly elected to state offices of public trust, and, who in turn, may have violated federal requirements for elections, and in so doing, cancelled out the lawful votes of citizens in the Plaintive States who have abided by the rule of law.

Unlike countries such as Venezuela where the “rule of law” is meaningless, and those in power arbitrarily dictate the “rule of law”, our Country is built upon “the rule of law” and “consent of the governed”, and this distinguishes our country from dictatorships like Venezuela, Cuba, China, etc.

Let us not forget that the voters of the Defendant States, and particularly so with respect to Pennsylvania, if the Plaintiff’s accusations are correct, were willing accomplices when they participated, in overwhelming numbers, and cast illegal ballots which violate one or more of the federal requirements for federal elections (i.e., equal protection, due process, and our Constitution’s Electors Clause) and thus, is it not self-evident that their votes, if illegal, must not be allowed to cancel out the lawful votes of the people in States which adhered to federal requirements and the rule of law for federal elections?

To this degree, that if the Plaintiff’s accusations are correct and provable (which would make countless voters in Defendant States willing accomplices with their elected officials in a depravation of rights under color of law) the Supreme Court ought to give a hearing to the allegations of Plaintiff States, and if such allegations are proven to be true, an obvious remedy would be to disallow the tabulation of election results of Defendant States as applied to the 2020 federal election.

For our Supreme Court to not do so, or provide an alternative remedy, is to embrace a depravation of rights under color of law and the tactics used in Cuban style elections, and ignore our fundamental founding principles . . . the rule of law and consent of the governed!

JWK

" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87

Well if it isn't the notorious cross-poster working the message boards of America yet again in a desperate lunge to fellate this wacko perversion of current events from his basement in Upper New York.

Wassup tovarich? Just back from borscht break?

 

[Pogo]

Well the swamp won by cheating and bastardizing our election system to such an extent that no one will ever trust it or the SCOTUS or any court or blue city vote counts ever again....and the media has lost all credibility...turn off cable news and break their backs once and for all....

You're a liar with no evidence. Get a life.

I'm not stupid like you....you still believe the Russian hoax don't you?....freaking dumbass....

Yea, only a dumbass with no argument would change the topic. You are weak and small. And you are a liar. Where's the fucking evidence loser?

You lost all over the nation....the GOP is on the verge of taking back the house....and state races all went to the GOP...so suck on that loser...add in that Trump actually won by a landslide and your party is on death row baby.....

Let's see what that "won by a landslide" looks like, shall we?

Sorry, those numbers are out of date. Rump's "landslide" at last count is minus seven million, fifty-nine thousand eight hundred votes.

THAT'll show 'im.

Remind me to teach you about negative numbers.

 

[22lcidw]

.



According to countless media reports a majority on our Supreme Court has RULED that Texas lacked standing under Article III of the Constitution and that Texas did not provide a “judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.”

So, what is meant by “standing”?

When the Supreme Court considers to hear a case, the first question is, does the Plaintiff have a right to sue in the Supreme Court? This is what “standing” is about. It is not about the issue(s) in contention, but rather, is the Plaintiff entitled to be heard in the Supreme Court and have a resolution handed down by the Justices of the Supreme Court?

To establish standing in the United States Supreme Court certain requirements must be meet, e.g., does the S.C. have jurisdiction over the subject matter? In the instant case, and under Article III of the Constitution, our Supreme Court does in fact have “original jurisdiction” over “Controversies between two or more States”.


Standing also requires that the plaintiff(s) has suffered an actual injury; the injury is the result of the actions of the defendant; and the asserted injury can be resolved by court action.

In the immediate case the State of Texas alleges in its BILL OF COMPLAINT that the Defendant States have violated Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, of the United States Constitution, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

If the allegations are true as stated in the Complaint, Defendant States have allowed an overwhelming number of ineligible votes to be cast which canceled out the votes of lawful votes cast by the good people in the Plaintiff States, and in so doing, have disenfranchised their vote and engaged in a “depravation of rights under color of law” which is an actionable offense and injury.

Those States which have followed the Constitution in the appointment of presidential electors ought not to suffer from alleged unlawful conduct of States which may have violated the federal Constitution in their appointment of presidential electors.

In fact, the people of the Defendant States must be held accountable for the actions of those they have willingly elected to state offices of public trust, and, who in turn, may have violated federal requirements for elections, and in so doing, cancelled out the lawful votes of citizens in the Plaintive States who have abided by the rule of law.

Unlike countries such as Venezuela where the “rule of law” is meaningless, and those in power arbitrarily dictate the “rule of law”, our Country is built upon “the rule of law” and “consent of the governed”, and this distinguishes our country from dictatorships like Venezuela, Cuba, China, etc.

Let us not forget that the voters of the Defendant States, and particularly so with respect to Pennsylvania, if the Plaintiff’s accusations are correct, were willing accomplices when they participated, in overwhelming numbers, and cast illegal ballots which violate one or more of the federal requirements for federal elections (i.e., equal protection, due process, and our Constitution’s Electors Clause) and thus, is it not self-evident that their votes, if illegal, must not be allowed to cancel out the lawful votes of the people in States which adhered to federal requirements and the rule of law for federal elections?

To this degree, that if the Plaintiff’s accusations are correct and provable (which would make countless voters in Defendant States willing accomplices with their elected officials in a depravation of rights under color of law) the Supreme Court ought to give a hearing to the allegations of Plaintiff States, and if such allegations are proven to be true, an obvious remedy would be to disallow the tabulation of election results of Defendant States as applied to the 2020 federal election.

For our Supreme Court to not do so, or provide an alternative remedy, is to embrace a depravation of rights under color of law and the tactics used in Cuban style elections, and ignore our fundamental founding principles . . . the rule of law and consent of the governed!

JWK

" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87

They didn't provide an alternative remedy in 2000, so why would you think they'd do so now?

In 2000 Progs received a lot of cheating votes then.

 

[Pogo]

It's pretty obvious, the defenders of the corruption and voting shenanigans ain't very intelligent- the OP expressed the what's needed to know about the fools in black dresses, all over the country- and he cited where his findings come from-

This would be before your time but the OP is a notorious paid shill for the propaganda industry. I busted him myself on these very pages several years ago. He didn't even have enough wits to change his name.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Well the swamp won by cheating and bastardizing our election system to such an extent that no one will ever trust it or the SCOTUS or any court or blue city vote counts ever again....and the media has lost all credibility...turn off cable news and break their backs once and for all....

Ramdumbtious Trump is the swamp. Nobody cheated our election system worked the way it always has, the majority voted to send Trump's ass packing and dumb ass Trump Humpers like you can't understand how your beloved savior lost.

 

[johnwk]

It's pretty obvious, the defenders of the corruption and voting shenanigans ain't very intelligent- the OP expressed the what's needed to know about the fools in black dresses, all over the country- and he cited where his findings come from-

This would be before your time but the OP is a notorious paid shill for the propaganda industry. I busted him myself on these very pages several years ago. He didn't even have enough wits to change his name.

Now that you have falsely attacked the messenger, how about refuting the message?

JWK


Today’s Fifth Column media ___ MSNBC, NEW YORK TIMES, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, WASHINGTON POST, ATLANTIC MAGAZINE, New York Daily News, Time, in addition to Facebook, Twitter ETC., and countless Yellow Journalists who are socialist revolutionaries ___ make Russia’s old Pravda, [an organ of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union] look like propaganda amateurs.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

You're a liar with no evidence. Get a life.

Have to appear in court much?